Ever wondered how literary giants craft their masterpieces? Step back to 1960 and listen in on Christopher Isherwood’s candid conversation about his writing process, character development, and the philosophical undercurrents of his work. You might never look at a blank page the same way again!
An insightful 1960 interview with celebrated author Christopher Isherwood delves into the intricate facets of his literary craft, revealing his unique approaches to composition, character development, and the philosophical underpinnings of his work. Recorded in Santa Monica, this discussion offers a rare glimpse into the mind of a writer who masterfully balanced meticulous construction with profound personal introspection, providing invaluable insights into the enduring power of the written word and the literary process that shapes it.
Isherwood challenged conventional wisdom regarding the writing techniques of revision, advocating for the completion of entire drafts before meticulous refinement. He candidly admitted the futility of perfecting early chapters without the perspective gained from the full narrative arc. Furthermore, he emphasized the crucial role of auditory imagination in crafting authentic dialogue, likening it to a musician finding the right ‘chord’—the distinct voice of a character serving as a wellspring for their speech.
The author extensively utilized diaries, not merely as factual records, but as foundational ‘islands of fact’ upon which fictional narratives could be built. This reliance on personal experience provided a sense of security, even as he acknowledged the subsequent reconstruction and alteration of these lived events in his fiction writing. More profoundly, Isherwood viewed writing as a form of self-analysis, an organic exploration of identity, past experiences, and the meaning of life, often drawing from subconscious depths.
A significant majority of Isherwood’s characters were inspired by real-life models, a practice he found essential for fostering a sense of security in his narrative. The transformation of these individuals into fictional entities involved a deliberate process of modification, simplification, exaggeration, and heightening or lowering of various characteristics, all dictated by the demands of the literary process and the narrative form. This highlights the interplay between reality and artistic interpretation in his work.
Isherwood’s literary lineage was profoundly shaped by figures such as E. M. Forster and Ibsen, particularly in his fascination with form and construction in the novel. He articulated a tension between writing meticulously constructed novels and what he termed ‘dynamic portraits’—works that evolve and reveal deeper truths through successive stages of the narrative, akin to uncovering layers within a painting. This dual approach underscores the complexity of his artistic vision in writing techniques.
His early training in screenwriting, predating his major novels, significantly influenced his writing techniques, particularly in teaching him visualization. While acknowledging the fundamental differences between film and literature, Isherwood learned to ‘see’ people in spaces and positions, a dramatic perspective often overlooked by purely non-dramatic writers. This background also informed his collaborations, such as with W.H. Auden, where he often saw himself as a librettist, structuring the narrative for Auden’s ‘music’ of verse.
The interview touches upon Isherwood’s engagement with Vedanta philosophy and its perceived impact on his work, particularly concerns regarding ego and the abandonment of self. He refuted interpretations that suggested a ‘schizoid’ or ‘tortured’ state, instead acknowledging an attempt to convey a sense of ‘acute malaise’ prevalent at the time. This philosophical lens shaped his exploration of character development and the often-challenging interplay between an artist’s heartless delight in experience and the world’s suffering, a key aspect of his autobiography in his works.
Isherwood addressed the broader context of his pacifism and his position relative to fellow ‘Thirties writers’ like Auden and Spender. He clarified that while they shared liberal attitudes, their views on pacifism differed. He also strongly critiqued both ‘dry as dust academic’ and ‘sloppy solarplexus’ approaches to art, asserting that true writers occupy a nuanced space between these extremes. His personal ethos, rather than intellectual justification, guided his individual decisions, reflecting a deeply intuitive rather than purely intellectual artistic sensibility that permeated his literary process and fiction writing.
Throughout the conversation, Isherwood’s commitment to self-exploration, his candid assessment of his own work, and his profound engagement with both personal experience and broader philosophical questions highlight his enduring legacy as a writer whose narratives continue to resonate with readers seeking a deeper understanding of the human condition and the art of creation. His unique blend of factual grounding and imaginative reconstruction cemented his place as a seminal figure in 20th-century literature.
